Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd

[2008] SASC 167

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil: Application)

PURINS v ALPINE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

[2008] SASC 167

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Anderson

25 June 2008

PROCEDURE - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - IN GENERAL - CLASSIFICATION - FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY

INDUSTRIAL LAW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEALS AND REFERENCES - FINALITY OF DECISIONS - DECISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT

INDUSTRIAL LAW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO COURT AND COMMISSION - POWER TO RE-OPEN

Application for specific directions seeking leave to institute proceedings in the Industrial Relations Court - application made following order preventing institution of proceedings unless permission obtained.

Held: Application refused - application an attempt to re-agitate issues already decided.

Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 11; Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd Unreported, Full Court, 6 March 1996, discussed.

PURINS v ALPINE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
[2008] SASC 167

Civil

1. ANDERSON J.     Debelle J on 18 January 2008 gave reasons for his decision to dismiss an appeal by Mr Purins: see Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 11. His Honour sets out the long history of Mr Purins’ attempts over more than 25 years to re-argue matters previously finalised in the Industrial Court. Debelle J decided that the appeal to this Court involved those same issues.

2. Debelle J also made an order prohibiting Mr Purins from instituting further proceedings in the workers compensation jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court without the permission of this Court. His Honour found that Mr Purins had persistently instituted proceedings in relation to an injury for which he received full compensation in 1981. The injury was suffered in 1978.

3. In his reasons Debelle J found that the appeal, which he dismissed, was

   [5]... another attempt to re-open an application to recover worker’s compensation in respect of a matter which has already been determined and cannot be determined again.

   That was the same conclusion which the Full Court of this Court reached in March 1996 in an earlier appeal on the same issues from the Full Court of the Industrial Relations Court: see Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd, unreported, Full Court, 6 March 1996.

4. The reasons of the Full Court indicate that Mr Purins was arguing at that time that the order made in the Industrial Court was void because it was a forgery obtained by deception.

5. On 28 February 2008 Debelle J dismissed the application by Mr Purins for permission to appeal his decision because, as His Honour pointed out, Mr Purins did not need permission as he had an appeal as of right. Mr Purins, although out of time, has not sought to lodge an appeal and seek an extension of time.

6. Instead of lodging an appeal Mr Purins filed an application for specific directions (FDN 12) on 30 May 2008.  That is the application now before this Court. It seeks permission to institute proceedings in the Industrial Court to “deregister and expunge a counterfeit order of the court feloniously entered”. In other words, to re-argue the same issue previously dismissed by the Full Court.

7. The affidavit in support of this application sets out the history of the matter in the Industrial Court. It is apparent that what Mr Purins is now seeking is part and parcel of his persistent unsuccessful attempts over the past 20 years to challenge the legitimacy of the order made in the Industrial Court in 1981. No new information is provided in this affidavit.

8. Mr Purins also filed an affidavit (FDN 15) on 16 June 2008 which purports to challenge the details of the payments made under the Workers Compensation Act. Mr Sharp, the solicitor for Alpine Constructions, has also filed an affidavit (FDN 14) setting out the long history of the matter. I will not repeat the details contained in that affidavit, which is purely an historical record of these proceedings.

9. Therefore, on the application for specific directions, I decline to make the order sought. Mr Purins is merely attempting, under another guise, to re-agitate the same issues which are the subject of the unfortunate history of this matter.

10. It is not a case where this Court should give permission to institute further proceedings. I would add to the orders of Debelle J that the Registry be directed to not accept any further documents lodged by Mr Purins in this matter unless and until the Registry obtains the approval of a judge or master of this Court. He is, of course, entitled to lodge documents relating to any appeal he may seek to advance against the orders Debelle J made on 18 January 2008, even though he is out of time.

11. The order is that permission is refused.

12. I will hear the parties as to costs.